is Wesnoth too hard to be fun...?

Share and discuss strategies for playing the game, and get help and tips from other players.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Evilstein
Posts: 8
Joined: May 27th, 2006, 11:07 pm

Post by Evilstein » June 1st, 2006, 1:02 pm

Not enought time in the solo campaign in hard level.

For more fun, the turn limit must be increase in offensive mission.

So you will be able to construct a good attaccking strategie whitout expecting luck in order to win.....because in a lot of battles only rush (kamikaze) attitude can save you from the timer.

Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1594
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Post by Soliton » June 1st, 2006, 1:44 pm

Evilstein wrote:Not enought time in the solo campaign in hard level.
Consider not playing on hard and/or give more specific feedback on what scenario is impossible to beat on hard.
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott

Evilstein
Posts: 8
Joined: May 27th, 2006, 11:07 pm

Post by Evilstein » June 1st, 2006, 3:02 pm

The two brothers mission 2 and 3 for exemple.

it is not impossible but you just have to rush because 24 turns is not enough.

User avatar
Ken_Oh
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2176
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Post by Ken_Oh » June 1st, 2006, 3:59 pm

That's why it's called Hard.

Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1594
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Post by Soliton » June 1st, 2006, 4:08 pm

Evilstein wrote:The two brothers mission 2 and 3 for exemple.

it is not impossible but you just have to rush because 24 turns is not enough.
I wonder what you expect from the hard difficulty. :roll:

Here are replays of Two Brothers on hard without losses. With losses it would have surely been quicker and easier.
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott

torangan
Retired Developer
Posts: 1365
Joined: March 27th, 2004, 12:25 am
Location: Germany

Post by torangan » June 1st, 2006, 4:31 pm

Soliton wrote:Here are replays of Two Brothers on hard without losses. With losses it would have surely been quicker and easier.
That's a perfect answer to the question of wheter hard is impossible, I'd say. :D
WesCamp-i18n - Translations for User Campaigns:
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesCamp

Translators for all languages required: contact me. No geek skills required!

Jym
Posts: 85
Joined: February 22nd, 2006, 4:15 pm
Location: Paris

Post by Jym » June 1st, 2006, 4:47 pm

Invisible Philosopher wrote:
pg wrote:I find multiplayer very fun and engaging but single player pretty frustrating or plain boring. I've thought a lot about why that is but I really don't know.
Here's a guess: when you lose in single player, the next game you play will be the same scenario --> boring. (And the AI is too perfect to be interesting most of the time.) But when you play in multiplayer, whether you win or lose, you get an interesting new game next time you play, including with different people who have different playing styles.
On that matter but a different perspective, I would certainly like some branching campaigns in which you're not forced to win every scenarios.

There are already some scenario where you are actually supposed to loose (in South Guard, or Gryfon's tale or A new Order). And there are also scenarios where you can either completely win or only halfwin (bay of pearls, typically) and that leads to different outcome.

It could be nice to have som scenarios where loosing just brings a different outcome. Say you are in a big battle and you can either win it and then go on on the plot to conquer the world or loose it, be captured and then have some escpae/dungeon crawling scenario will the rest of your army suffer a painful retreat and after a few scenarios you are back with your smaller force.

Well, I guess that this will probably be a nightmare for campaign developers... But the idea is that the winning side in a war does not necessarily win all the battles, so even if you win the campaign you should be allowed to lose some scenarios. Plus, that would lead to less linear campaigns where the storyline may differ from one game to the other. The outcome of the first battle may, for example, yield to either an offensive or defensive campaign. Trying to invade ennemy country or try to defend yours.

Maybe, that's better suited in a MP campaign...


Concerning the difficultty of beating the game, well I've only played in medium (except Two brothers in easy) and had no real trouble for winning. I try to avoid too much savescumming. Being prepared to lose some high level units (that is having a pipeline going) helps, of course... (I'm not very good at pipelining... I usually buy canonfodder so I can aford loses...)
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

User avatar
Xandria
Posts: 230
Joined: April 23rd, 2006, 5:10 pm
Location: Heart of Europe

Post by Xandria » June 1st, 2006, 5:20 pm

The randomness of the game is a major factor - you cannot plan effectively. When at a crucial moment your mage decides to miss with all attacks, or your knight gets pummeled while charging, despite having 60 or 70 % to hit.. that is the time where you grind your teeth and load.
So: either the AI should have a little less resources (as to allow you to win with decent planning and suboptimal luck) or the randomness should be reduced - let's say with the damage based around a bell curve, and average damage being REALLY likely. A minimum and a maximum damage done/taken should be guaranteed according to the terrain and units participating.

An idea: you could actually earn re-rolls or resurrects in the campaign, as to allow to save, say, that Mage of Light (with 40 hp and about 200 exp to level a rather costly and likely loss). This would reduce the amount of save-load significantly.
The fight against human stupidity is endless, but we must never give it up.
- Jan Werich

Ragwortshire
Posts: 36
Joined: May 9th, 2006, 8:31 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by Ragwortshire » June 1st, 2006, 6:39 pm

Equally, bad luck often afflicts the computer. When the AI's line collapses due to, e.g., all of their elusivefoot units taking full damage, or when their leader dies to a lucky charge, you get extra early finishing gold and the rest of the campaign becomes easier.
There midnight's all a-glimmer, and noon a purple glow. (The Lake Isle of Inisfree - W.B. Yeats)

torangan
Retired Developer
Posts: 1365
Joined: March 27th, 2004, 12:25 am
Location: Germany

Post by torangan » June 1st, 2006, 7:38 pm

Wesnoth is based around a strong random factor. Like it or not but accept if you want to continue playing. This topic has been long since discussed to death and it won't change.
WesCamp-i18n - Translations for User Campaigns:
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesCamp

Translators for all languages required: contact me. No geek skills required!

Liminiality2
Posts: 53
Joined: January 17th, 2006, 10:21 pm
Location: a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

Post by Liminiality2 » June 1st, 2006, 7:47 pm

some people here are saying that Httt is easy, however i find it hard for me, even on easy mode.

Ironicaly I am very far in Eastern Invasion (great campaign BtW!) and it is easy for me, i only lost once because i waited too long healing my ragtag band of heros.
NO FOG is certain - Elvish Pillager
Campaign: Revenge of the Elves http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11477

scott
Posts: 5242
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by scott » June 1st, 2006, 7:55 pm

In httt, you can win the first two scenarios without even fighting a single enemy unit. This does make the third one a little tough, though, since that strategy stops working. ;)
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.

Stilgar
Posts: 465
Joined: January 21st, 2006, 8:22 pm

Post by Stilgar » June 1st, 2006, 9:41 pm

scott wrote:In httt, you can win the first two scenarios without even fighting a single enemy unit. This does make the third one a little tough, though, since that strategy stops working. ;)
My usual policy is to run as fast as possible in the first, but fight (and preferably kill the enemy leader) on the second. I guess I'm just not skilled enough yet to gain any benefit from fighting on that first level, when I try to it always seems like my guys die and/or don't level up enough to be worth the extra gold spent.

Ailurus
Posts: 20
Joined: March 10th, 2006, 11:07 pm

Post by Ailurus » June 1st, 2006, 11:28 pm

Depending on the units you use, the xp they gain can be worth a lot of gold. With the HttT units, keep in mind that a shaman costs 15, an archer 17 and a scout 19. For each of those, even only 5 XP or so can make recalling them worth it in some cases - Shaman are difficult to get XP for, since killing with them is hard, and archers and riders would only save you 3 or even just 1 gold. For mages and horsemen, recalling is always the best answer if they even have only 1 XP (or no xp for the horseman - recalling a horseman for 20 gold is cheaper than recruiting for 23).

Ansbach
Posts: 9
Joined: February 15th, 2006, 11:57 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by Ansbach » June 4th, 2006, 1:27 am

No offense at all guys, but if you are finding this game too hard on "Easy" you are missing some really basic fundamentals of the game somewhere.

I'm sure if you can be more specific about what you are having problems with, the experienced community can help you out and you will soon find the easy levels very easy.

Post Reply